In what is described as a reaction against the Citizens United vs. FEC ruling, which essentially allowed the buying of elections, Sens. Tom Udall and Michael Bennet drafted a Constitutional amendment to allow Congress and state legislatures to regulate campaign contributions. The amendment doesn't specify precise limits that legislatures should put on these funds; it only gives them the authority to do so.
I find the Supreme Court's reasoning in the Citizens United case risible. If monetary donations to a political campaign constitute free speech, can't I tell a hooker how desirable her services are with my money? Or show my appreciation for a narcotics peddler's wares with my dough-nation?
No?
So why are neither of those considered "speech", but political donations are? This layman's understanding of speech would require it to entail language of some sort (spoken, written, or electronic), not bribery.
I praise Sens. Udall and Bennet for recognizing that money is not speech.
No comments:
Post a Comment